Information on Protocol for Pavel Ziborov Applicant

[Pope130]

Is Tiger Woods' performance the same from day to day or does it vary?

Certainly it varies, but it is consistently abouve random. To prove he has an ability at golf he should be tested against a standard which represents random. I humbly volunteer for this post. I've tried golf (once) and my performance can be accurately described as random.

Robert

 

[steenkh]

Is Tiger Woods' performance the same from day to day or does it vary?

Are you claiming that Pavel's abilities are as rare as Tiger Woods making a hole-in-one?

Curiously, we think you are right: Pavel probably can only manage to get his 64% right as often as Tiger Woods can manage a hole-in-one. This is consistent with the view that Pavel does not have any special abilities.

 

[Rodney]

Are you claiming that Pavel's abilities are as rare as Tiger Woods making a hole-in-one?

Curiously, we think you are right: Pavel probably can only manage to get his 64% right as often as Tiger Woods can manage a hole-in-one. This is consistent with the view that Pavel does not have any special abilities.

You've missed the point in spectacular fashion. UncaYimmy stated: "What Pavel needs to do (are you paying attention, Rodney?) is to figure out when he actually knows that he's right. That's how science works. If there's an ability there, I would say there's gotta be something different going on compared to when he's wrong. If he can learn to distinguish this, then he could ace 20 trials without a problem . . . Take a little kid swinging a golf club for the first time. He has little idea of where the ball is going to end up. When it ends up where he wants it to go, he tries to figure out what he did to get it there. When it doesn't go where he wants it to go, he tries to figure out why it did. Lather, rinse, repeat and you're Tiger Woods . . . "

The problem is that, even now, after devoting his life to perfecting his golf game, Woods' performance varies dramatically from hole-to-hole. So why should we expect that Pavel "could ace 20 trials without a problem"?

 

[fls]

You've missed the point in spectacular fashion. UncaYimmy stated: "What Pavel needs to do (are you paying attention, Rodney?) is to figure out when he actually knows that he's right. That's how science works. If there's an ability there, I would say there's gotta be something different going on compared to when he's wrong. If he can learn to distinguish this, then he could ace 20 trials without a problem . . . Take a little kid swinging a golf club for the first time. He has little idea of where the ball is going to end up. When it ends up where he wants it to go, he tries to figure out what he did to get it there. When it doesn't go where he wants it to go, he tries to figure out why it did. Lather, rinse, repeat and you're Tiger Woods . . . "

The problem is that, even now, after devoting his life to perfecting his golf game, Woods' performance varies dramatically from hole-to-hole. So why should we expect that Pavel "could ace 20 trials without a problem"?

We're not asking Pavel to play a game. That would be like asking him to go win money at a casino. We're setting up an artificial situation designed to make it as easy as possible for him to demonstrate his abilities by removing a lot of extraneous factors which could influence the results even though they have nothing to do with his ability. And we have reduced his claim to something very simple If we were doing the same for Tiger Woods, we would ask him to hit the same tee shot over and over and over again on the driving range in order to demonstrate that on average he could hit it much, much (much, much, much) further than I could. There is simply no question that regardless of even abnormal variation in his performance, he would be able to demonstrate his claim.

Linda

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
So why should we expect that Pavel "could ace 20 trials without a problem"?

We should expect that Pavel does what he tells us he can do. Once he gets around to actually do it.

 

[Klaymore]

It looks to me like Pavel's superpower might be getting otherwise fairly reasonable skeptics to believe that he's not just yanking their chains. I remember well, two odd years ago, when Pavel posted his first message to all of us, his confidence in his ability to consistently, repeatedly predict some kind of stuff that normal people shouldn't be able to predict, his claims to have amazed and brought joy to innumerable masses the world over through his wonderous powers... Heady days, those.

Now, here we are two years later, and I keep seeing folks I typically regard as reasonable sticking up for this freaking, no-test-taking, no-suprepower-having loser, telling me how sincere and cuddly and earnest he is. Sweet love-crapping baby Jesus, two plus years of daily posting, and the dude's English hasn't even gotten appreciably better! (Though in all fairness, his English seems to be better than Edge's.)

 

[Cuddles]

See the word in bold? It's not a test. It's a challenge. How can you say you understand the point and then totally ignore it?

Yeesh, you'd think someone with such poor understanding would spend less time trying to tell others they don't understand. Of course the challenge is a test. The challenge is "Pass this test that we both agree would require a paranormal ability to pass.". If there was no test, you'd really have to wonder why we spend so much time in this section discussing test protocols, and why the JREF spends even more time doing so with applicants.

If you can manage to get your head around that very simple concept, then perhaps you can then understand what my point actually was - trying to use a test that cannot show someone does not have paranormal abilities is a really, really stupid way of trying to show that that person does not have paranormal abilities. It is therefore extremely important for the JREF to ensure that a test is fair to an applicant by ensuring that there is a high probability of success should they actually possess the claimed ability.

 

[fls]

I realize that there is almost no interest in holding Randi and the MDC to the standards that they claim for themselves. I've always been in a ridiculed minority when I make these suggestions. It is clear that the Challenge is not about allowing people to demonstrate their claims, but rather about providing examples for our ridicule - partly for education, partly for group-bonding (my guesses). I am in the process of moving on from the idea of trying to persuade anyone to care to that of trying to get the JREF and Randi to be more upfront about this instead, in order to thwart criticism. I fully realize that this will be a futile effort as well. I also continue to tell people to quit smoking. The taciturn farmer who 10 years ago hugged me and told me I changed his life is what keeps me trying.

Linda

 

[Klimax]

I realize that there is almost no interest in holding Randi and the MDC to the standards that they claim for themselves. I've always been in a ridiculed minority when I make these suggestions. It is clear that the Challenge is not about allowing people to demonstrate their claims, but rather about providing examples for our ridicule - partly for education, partly for group-bonding (my guesses). I am in the process of moving on from the idea of trying to persuade anyone to care to that of trying to get the JREF and Randi to be more upfront about this instead, in order to thwart criticism. I fully realize that this will be a futile effort as well. I also continue to tell people to quit smoking. The taciturn farmer who 10 years ago hugged me and told me I changed his life is what keeps me trying.

Linda

Interesting opinion. [CFLarsen]Evidence?[/CFLarsen]

 

[fls]

Interesting opinion. [CFLarsen]Evidence?[/CFLarsen]

Fortunately for me, there isn't really evidence for this opinion, which is probably why, deep down, I continue to hope that it isn't true. These are the sorts of things which make it difficult for me to believe that it isn't true:

Randi's non-apologetic dismissal of those who were concerned when it was discovered that he had plagiarized one of the posts on this forum.
The consistent setting of claim standards at a level which would make it unlikely that the claimant would pass, even if they have the ability they claim to have.
Randi's unwillingness to accept an application when a preliminary test performed by a skeptic group returned results with a p-value less than 0.001.
A number of occasions when it seemed that applications were closed prematurely.
I haven't been able to read SWIFT for several years due to the level of derision.

Linda

 

[IXP]

I realize that there is almost no interest in holding Randi and the MDC to the standards that they claim for themselves. I've always been in a ridiculed minority when I make these suggestions. It is clear that the Challenge is not about allowing people to demonstrate their claims, but rather about providing examples for our ridicule - partly for education, partly for group-bonding (my guesses). I am in the process of moving on from the idea of trying to persuade anyone to care to that of trying to get the JREF and Randi to be more upfront about this instead, in order to thwart criticism. I fully realize that this will be a futile effort as well. I also continue to tell people to quit smoking. The taciturn farmer who 10 years ago hugged me and told me I changed his life is what keeps me trying.

Linda

I am with you, Linda. I have forgiven many minor breaches by Randi, when the targets basically deserved what they got, but this time I think he stepped over the line. Pavel was involved in negotiation in good faith, but then Randi cut him off at the knees. An organization that purports to espouse a rationalist view should be held to high standards.

IXP

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Fortunately for me, there isn't really evidence for this opinion, which is probably why, deep down, I continue to hope that it isn't true. These are the sorts of things which make it difficult for me to believe that it isn't true:

Randi's non-apologetic dismissal of those who were concerned when it was discovered that he had plagiarized one of the posts on this forum.
The consistent setting of claim standards at a level which would make it unlikely that the claimant would pass, even if they have the ability they claim to have.
Randi's unwillingness to accept an application when a preliminary test performed by a skeptic group returned results with a p-value less than 0.001.
A number of occasions when it seemed that applications were closed prematurely.
I haven't been able to read SWIFT for several years due to the level of derision.

Linda

Thank you for your honesty, Linda.

 

[steenkh]

You've missed the point in spectacular fashion.

Or you have missed my point!

The problem is that, even now, after devoting his life to perfecting his golf game, Woods' performance varies dramatically from hole-to-hole. So why should we expect that Pavel "could ace 20 trials without a problem"?

Tiger Woods would not be able to consistently do better than a newbie? Surely, a test of Tiger Woods' abilities would not be based on the claim that he only makes hole-in-ones. And in the same way, a test of Pavel would not demand that he performs at peak efficiency, only that he performs better than average.

For Pavel this is a real problem if his peak efficiency is marginally better than average, because he must either make a claim that is difficult to distinguish from average results, or he must face a test where he has to be at peak performance.

The JREF is obsessed with keeping tests as simple as possible, and he will not get the go for tests that involve hundreds of trials, or which takes hours.

 

[steenkh]

I realize that there is almost no interest in holding Randi and the MDC to the standards that they claim for themselves. I've always been in a ridiculed minority when I make these suggestions.

Really? I find it hard to believe that your opinions are ever ridiculed!

It is clear that the Challenge is not about allowing people to demonstrate their claims, but rather about providing examples for our ridicule - partly for education, partly for group-bonding (my guesses).

Has Randi not always been frank about the aims of the MDC? His main interest has always been to expose frauds, and he has often written about his disappointment with the MDC not being the weapon he had hoped for when targeting high profile con artists like Sylvia Browne. He obviously thought that the media would ridicule people like her and Uri Geller for not accepting the Challenge, but instead the media has accepted their silence or their arguments for not taking it (like recently when John Edwards was able to dismiss the Challenge because it was run by a man called "Amazing", and got away with it).

Instead, the MDC has devolved into something that tests the small fry that Randi regards as unimportant. A few years ago, the demand for media presence was added to the Challenge rules, and this was a new attempt to focus on the higher profiled claimants, but the quality of the applicants did not go up, and Randi wanted to close down the MDC.

As we all know, the skeptic community has prodded the JREF to resume the MDC, because the MDC has the qualities that you mention, the serious minded of us use it for educational purpose, some use it to ridicule the applicants, and generally we use it for group-bonding on this forum. But clearly, this was not what Randi had in mind, and I often get the feeling that he just wants to dismiss all the small fry applications that to him is a waste of time.

I think this is what happened to Pavel, who is simply not important enough in Randi's eyes, and the unfortunately got dismissed after a lengthy negotiation phase that just did not seem to go anywhere, particularly to someone like Randi who has not been following the negotiations closely.

 

[Klimax]

...
Randi's non-apologetic dismissal of those who were concerned when it was discovered that he had plagiarized one of the posts on this forum.
The consistent setting of claim standards at a level which would make it unlikely that the claimant would pass, even if they have the ability they claim to have.
...
Linda

Links? I had to miss it. (I read it for a year and half(with several months gap and last month I didn't again,so I could miss it very easily.)

 

[fls]

Links? I had to miss it. (I read it for a year and half(with several months gap and last month I didn't again,so I could miss it very easily.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73944

Linda

 

[fls]

Has Randi not always been frank about the aims of the MDC? His main interest has always been to expose frauds, and he has often written about his disappointment with the MDC not being the weapon he had hoped for when targeting high profile con artists like Sylvia Browne. He obviously thought that the media would ridicule people like her and Uri Geller for not accepting the Challenge, but instead the media has accepted their silence or their arguments for not taking it (like recently when John Edwards was able to dismiss the Challenge because it was run by a man called "Amazing", and got away with it).

I agree. The 'televised to a general public' type of challenges serve a useful purpose along the lines of what Randi intended for the Challenge. You will notice that we aren't involved in those protocol negotiations. We get involved in the endless parade of naive unknowns.

Instead, the MDC has devolved into something that tests the small fry that Randi regards as unimportant.

Exactly. And why has Randi allowed that? I'd be happy to buy the excuses that it just sort of happened and that Randi doesn't have sufficient control to form the MDC into what it should be. I just wish that my confidence that this was really the case didn't have to depend solely upon the word of someone who on numerous occasions has given me false information. My skepticism is not something that I can just turn off when faced with my own wishful thinking.

A few years ago, the demand for media presence was added to the Challenge rules, and this was a new attempt to focus on the higher profiled claimants, but the quality of the applicants did not go up, and Randi wanted to close down the MDC.

As we all know, the skeptic community has prodded the JREF to resume the MDC, because the MDC has the qualities that you mention, the serious minded of us use it for educational purpose, some use it to ridicule the applicants, and generally we use it for group-bonding on this forum. But clearly, this was not what Randi had in mind, and I often get the feeling that he just wants to dismiss all the small fry applications that to him is a waste of time.

This is the part where a little transparency would go a long way.

I think this is what happened to Pavel, who is simply not important enough in Randi's eyes, and the unfortunately got dismissed after a lengthy negotiation phase that just did not seem to go anywhere, particularly to someone like Randi who has not been following the negotiations closely.

Since I said the same thing several pages ago, I must agree.

Linda

 

[EHocking]

Parapsychologists 'count' the improbable losses as evidence of paranormal abilities. It's called 'psi-missing'.

Sorry about the slow response.

I am totally with where you and Cuddels are coming from on the the probability missing being just as important as the probability of succeeding in any sort of trial. And it may well be an interesting follow up study to an MDC failure.

My point is, though, that the MDC is not a parapsychologist's study - it is a Paranormal Challenge. The only thing that is being tested (or should be tested, I should say) is the Applicant's claim. Now if, as in this case, the applicant's claimed success rate cannot be shown to be significantly better than random chance, I don't think that there's much more discussion needed by JREF on the MDC and the Applicant should try to ply his trade with a parapsychologist instead, perhaps.

The idea is that people deliberately miss through shyness or fear. Then you have the 'experimenter effect' whereby the belief or lack of belief of the person running the experiment influences the results.

I personally feel that these are just lame excuses by people that know that they cannot demonstrate any paranormal skills despite their brave boasting. I admit that this is a slightly peeving opinion based on observing such boasting for years on usenet and other forums including this one.

A skeptic will get ordinary results from their subjects, while a non-skeptic will get extraordinary results. Except, of course, when they don't. All of these effects are testable and applicable to the MDC. The problem is that none of them can be specified beforehand, but rather show up in the results a posteriori.

I disagree here, because this is not the nature of the MDC. While, yes, these *could* be tested by protocols designed for the MDC, the MDC is not a parapsychology study - it is merely a challenge for boasters to put up or shut up.

That is, if your results fall on the extremes of the normal curve (and remember, parapsychologists use an easier standard than is used in other scientific fields, as they usually use one-tailed testing), psi or psi-missing is present. If your results were ordinary and they can't be made to be extraordinary through sub-group analysis (a fairly easy task with enough heterogeneity), then they were performed in the presence of a skeptic. If after all that, they are still unremarkable, then a meta-analysis which includes poor quality studies (quality refers to the likelihood of producing the appearance of an effect when one is not present) so that a bias can be spread out over very large numbers and return p-values which dazzle you into not noticing effect sizes that represent not guessing one time in a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand, is supposed to persuade you that those people who used confirmation bias and informal observation to discover that they have amazing powers were really on to something.

Linda

But again, it is not the purpose of the MDC to be a parapsychologist study or metastudy, it is a Challenge only. While the one of the aims of the JREF is to support and conduct research into the paranormal, it is not the aim of the MDC.

From the above link, "About the Foundation";

To raise public awareness of these issues, the Foundation offers a $1,000,000 prize to any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under mutually agreed upon scientific conditions.

It's pretty unequivocal as far as I can see. I don't believe that I'm entering into semantics or attempting to split hairs, I just don't see anywhere that the MDC purports to be anything but a Challenge. IF an applicant was sufficiently educated to propose in an Application the conditions, results and conclusions you outline above, I agree that the MDC *could* and should test such a claim, but the fact is that no one has opted for this approach as they inevitably boast only of great and significant successes, then backpedal when challenged with excuses about the skill not being consistent, often with the "excuses" you outlined above.

I put together a spreadsheet of all the claims to date (ok a year out of date) in an attempt to statistically analyse the types of applications and their relative success in getting tested. If I can find some time it may prove interesting to review those 8 or so tests to see if there are any failures that fall into the lower end of probability that we're talking about.

ETA: Cuddles, I hope the above addresses your last response to my post as well? I'm sure you'll point it out if it does not.

 

[fls]

I'm sorry. The satirical component to my post was more subtle than I realized so that you didn't realize that we were in agreement. My answers below are intended to clarify this.

Sorry about the slow response.

I am totally with where you and Cuddels are coming from on the the probability missing being just as important as the probability of succeeding in any sort of trial. And it may well be an interesting follow up study to an MDC failure.

My point is, though, that the MDC is not a parapsychologist's study - it is a Paranormal Challenge. The only thing that is being tested (or should be tested, I should say) is the Applicant's claim. Now if, as in this case, the applicant's claimed success rate cannot be shown to be significantly better than random chance, I don't think that there's much more discussion needed by JREF on the MDC and the Applicant should try to ply his trade with a parapsychologist instead, perhaps.

I personally feel that these are just lame excuses by people that know that they cannot demonstrate any paranormal skills despite their brave boasting. I admit that this is a slightly peeving opinion based on observing such boasting for years on usenet and other forums including this one.

Yes. In a normal field of study, a researcher who tried to claim that any and all results - positive, negative, and indifferent - provided support for their idea would be ridiculed. In parapsychology, it seems to be SOP.

I disagree here, because this is not the nature of the MDC. While, yes, these *could* be tested by protocols designed for the MDC, the MDC is not a parapsychology study - it is merely a challenge for boasters to put up or shut up. But again, it is not the purpose of the MDC to be a parapsychologist study or metastudy, it is a Challenge only. While the one of the aims of the JREF is to support and conduct research into the paranormal, it is not the aim of the MDC.

I agree. My point was only that all of these *could* be tested by protocols designed for the MDC - nothing precludes them from the MDC a priori.

From the above link, "About the Foundation";
It's pretty unequivocal as far as I can see. I don't believe that I'm entering into semantics or attempting to split hairs, I just don't see anywhere that the MDC purports to be anything but a Challenge. IF an applicant was sufficiently educated to propose in an Application the conditions, results and conclusions you outline above, I agree that the MDC *could* and should test such a claim, but the fact is that no one has opted for this approach as they inevitably boast only of great and significant successes, then backpedal when challenged with excuses about the skill not being consistent, often with the "excuses" you outlined above.

I agree - it was more of a rant about the believer's approach to systematic study generally than it was about the believer's approach to systematic study for the MDC.

I put together a spreadsheet of all the claims to date (ok a year out of date) in an attempt to statistically analyse the types of applications and their relative success in getting tested. If I can find some time it may prove interesting to review those 8 or so tests to see if there are any failures that fall into the lower end of probability that we're talking about.

Going on my own recollection, we haven't seen anyone come close here. If there was a pattern whereby people were coming close, but just missing, that would be a very different discussion. I wouldn't be here, for one, because that would be sufficient evidence for me to realize that the JREF's actions were intentional and I would be too disgusted to stay.

Linda

 

[EHocking]

I'm sorry. The satirical component to my post was more subtle than I realized so that you didn't realize that we were in agreement. My answers below are intended to clarify this.

Waaayyy to subtle, obviously!

...Going on my own recollection, we haven't seen anyone come close here. If there was a pattern whereby people were coming close, but just missing, that would be a very different discussion. I wouldn't be here, for one, because that would be sufficient evidence for me to realize that the JREF's actions were intentional and I would be too disgusted to stay.

Linda

A quick list of those tested that may be interesting to chase up and check the results (I may be missing one or two in the 12 months before Connie Sonne, I haven't updated my spreadsheet for a year).

I can't recall anyone here objecting violently to the targets set, and most of them have so few "trials" in the test, that I don't think the lower, "expected failure" probability actually comes in to play, regardless of results. Numbers in brackets are number of trials proposed for their test.

ACHAU NGUYEN, Hawaiian Psychic (20)
Hans Peter Borer, Celfon + Pendulum = $1,000,000 (13)
DEJA GATEWARD & THE GSIC fiasco (binary)
ANGELA PATEL, UK Dowser of Lost Persons (3)
CAMERON JOHNSON, Carolina Moonshot (10)
YELLOW BAMBOO & "A.G. Donovan" (binary)
JIM DUNN, Hospital Angel (binary)
JAMES BLUNT, metal visionary (3)
CONNIE SONNE, dowser (3)

ETA: So on the subject of our discussion, Pavel's test could fall under this "failure" analysis if he only did 15 trials. A zero, would fall outside the laws of probability if the benchmark was 1:10,000 and (probably) only 0-1 correct if the benchmark was 1:1,000.